Committee hears bill to create single‑city fire protection districts and alter levy rules

Substitute Senate Bill 6,037 would change how a newly formed single‑city fire protection district interacts with a city’s property tax structure and statutory maximum rates.

Jeff Mitchell, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s mechanics: it would eliminate the current requirement that a city must reduce its general‑fund property tax levy dollar for dollar by the new fire district levies and instead reduce the city’s statutory maximum tax rate by the aggregate rate imposed by the fire protection district for districts created after July 1, 2026. Mitchell also explained that 25¢ of a city or town fire protection district levy may be placed into the property‑tax “gap,” and that the City of Seattle is exempt from the levy‑reduction requirement under the bill. “If the maximum statutory rate of a city is $3.60 and the fire district imposes a new $1 property tax, the city’s statutory maximum would be lowered from $3.60 to $2.60,” Mitchell said.

Supporters said the bill provides a practical option for cities that want to retain local control of fire and EMS services while creating a voter‑approved dedicated funding mechanism. Candace Bach of the Association of Washington Cities said the change would make single‑city fire districts “equivalent to regional fire authority authority” and provide another alternative for funding fire service where regionalization is not feasible. Chief Harold Scoggins of the Seattle Fire Department testified the bill offers “a practical, transparent, and voter driven option” and that personnel, equipment and contracts would transfer seamlessly to a district.

The Washington State Council of Fire Fighters, represented by AJ Johnson, supported the bill’s fund‑stability goal but asked for an amendment requiring newly formed single‑city districts to establish an independently elected board of fire commissioners within two years to ensure direct voter accountability. “If voters are being asked to approve a dedicated fire EMS levy, they should also have direct accountability through elected fire commissioners,” Johnson said.

Opponents raised concerns about the bill’s interaction with other local levies and the state’s prorationing rules. Matthew Ellsworth of the Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts opposed SB 6,037 on the grounds that hospital district levy space could be consumed by new fire levies, harming hospitals’ fiscal capacity. Jeff Pack of Washington Citizens Against Unfair Taxes opposed the bill on broader tax‑increase grounds and urged improved electronic notice for district formation.

The committee took no final action on SB 6,037 at this hearing; staff noted a fiscal note estimating Department of Revenue expenditures at about $12,000 and described local impacts as indeterminate because it is unknown how many cities would use the mechanism.

Next steps: SB 6,037 may be amended in subsequent committee work; proponents and opponents asked for additional stakeholder negotiation and a clarifying amendment on governance and levy interactions.